Captain Dan:I didn't say "fark the elderly." I don't want to do that, anyway. I think that they are collecting health care benefits that are much more generous than they paid for in taxes, which will end up forcing younger generations to pay for it. That doesn't strike me as a fair arrangement, which is why I'd like the elderly to pay a bit more for the care they receive.

The elderly require more health care than the young. They have put in their time. It's part of the social contract (or should be), and it is simply the right, moral thing to do. Not "fair" would be young people shirking their responsibility to society, based on the almighty dollar as a guide.

Nabb1:So, he's not real big on the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments, either. Yes, the Republicans are acting like petulant spoiled brats and they need to stop blocking every appointment willy-nilly, but let's not lose sight of the fact that there are some troubling expansions of unchecked executive power going on.

Hillary told a slain marine's father she would work to jail the mean man who made the awful Islam video that she knew was not the cause of the embassy attack. That doesn't strike me as being too 1st amendment-friendly. Granted, Hillbillary isn't Obama, and we did find that the videographer had violated the terms of his parole or something (isn't that how the Iraq war v2.0 started?), but for her to seemingly suggest to the father they would go get the guy for making a video is farked. But, Obama isn't any more responsible for her statements than anyone else that reports to him.

I think the IRS thing is a genuine problem. There are enough nuts out there who already believe the government is out to get them, that providing factual evidence that it is indeed occurring is going to inspire serious backlash to the tune of Waco and Ruby Ridge, if we're lucky. And Oklahoma City if we're not.

The Republican party has long used fear as a tactic to motivate voters. As a result, we have a number of fractured, separatist groups in the US who believe what they were spoon fed and see the Democratic-lead government as 'out to get them.' These people already on the fringe socially have no one honestly challenging their view point and now have a pretty serious motivation to respond in very unpleasant ways.

I am Jack's genuine concern for how the next 2-6 years could go if things continue down this track.

Gaseous Anomaly:Problem: Unequal outcomes in generation N lead to unequal opportunities in generation N+1. From college/business connections, down to prenatal nutrition.

We'll never have a true meritocracy unless we outlaw the family, Brave New World-style. (Even then there are genetics to consider, but there's a limit to how far one can take this idea).

Can we approximate a meritocracy? Probably not IMO.

Perfect meritocracy is impossible and probably not a good idea, for the reasons you outline. We need families for socialization of the young into healthy functional adults. It's normal for parents to want to provide the best they can for their children, and to a large extent it is moral, ethical and practical - advantageous to society in general. The problem is that it tends to be a positive feedback loop, and allowed to run unchecked it's very dangerous to a society on the long term.

The idea is not to force a perfect meritocracy, but rather to provide a counterbalance to the positive feedback loop whereby wealth and privilege magnify themselves from generation to generation leading to strict class stratification and aristocracies, de facto or de jure, and to provide avenues whereby the talented from underprivileged groups have the opportunity to use those talents, both for their own betterment but also for the larger good of society as a result of the products of their talents. It is appropriate to have an ongoing conversation about this topic, and to apply efforts towards that end in a tentative manner, contingent on changing circumstances. What's not appropriate is ideological extremism that either fellates the rich and denigrates the poor, or that advocates stealing everything from the successful to give to the imporverished. Neither is at all practical or useful.

Danger Mouse:It's kinda like making the statment that you didn't send forces in because you knew at that moment they couldn't get there in time. Even though you claim you didn't really understand what was going on, you knew whatever it was it was going ot be over before you got there.

It's kinda like people who think Fox News has properly trained them to be arm-chair generals and know the first thing about the topics they're always spouting off about to people who don't give a shiat. If we wanted to know what you and tenpoundsoftard thought about it, we'd just turn on Limbaugh.

KiltedBastich:While I disagree with you on public sector collective bargaining, I recognize that there is room for rational debate on that topic, fine. I personally do not feel that teachers and police and so on should be undervalued, rather that they are very important and all too often given short shrift.

I don't want teachers or police to be undervalued either. I'm quite fond of most of the teachers I learned from. I have lots of teachers in my family, and I'm pro-education by temperament. A good teacher is more important to society than most other professions.

Despite my pro-teacher sympathies, I am uncomfortable with a bargaining structure which is fundamentally designed to privilege union interests, rather than teachers' interests, or students' interests, or citizens' interests. A union's first order is to maximize its own power.

In the private sector, unions are a healthy part of the natural give-and-take between employees and employer. In the public sector, there is no equivalent power to hold unions in check. Politicians find it expeditious to give unions what they want and pass the costs onto future taxpayers.

I favor a system that gives the best teachers more than they are currently receiving, the average teacher about the same, and the worst teachers a pink slip. Job security for subpar teachers is not a priority that I share with unions.

The idea that humans are unequal and should have unequal outcomes is fine within a narrowly defined context of true meritocracy, and requires also recognizing the large role played by society in individual success - something usually ignored completely in ideological debates on this topic, but which is extremely well understood in the social sciences, since Durkheim first explored the concepts of mechanical vs. organic solidarity as the basis of social stability (I recognize those look like buzzwords, but they are the terms of art used).

This is moderately condescending. I don't know a single person who believes that society doesn't play a great role in shaping an individual's fortune.

Furthermore, equality of opportunity should be promoted as much as possible - everyone should have the chance to make the most of their talents and skills, even while fully expecting that the outcomes of those efforts will be necessarily unequal. This also requires recognizing that the use of social power by humans to protect that social power for themselves, their loved ones and descendants and their cronies is normal and to be expected, but runs counter to the good of society by promoting social stratification based on inherited wealth and privilege rather than merit.

No disagreements so far...

Long story short, that is a much more complicated topic than you may be aware, and the Republicans are not the ones having conversations with the social scientists who study those patterns in human social behaviour.. The idea that the Democrats want a touchy-feely everyone-wins no-one loses society is false. There were certain advocates of that pattern on the left, but few among any actual social scientists who understand how pointless and corrosive it is, and the social experiments promoted around self-esteem building were deeply unscientific and roundly decried by most credible psychologists.

Remember that I was discussing equality within the context of what the two political parties espouse. The "everyone-gets-a-trophy" mentality is more prevalent on the political left than on the political right, which is why my view of "to hell with the trophies" puts me out of step with the left. My rapport with sympathetic liberal social scientists is immaterial, at least until they shift the culture on the political left.

As for the notion that the elderly are getting more than their fair share being a Democratic position, I find myself bemused. The elderly are generally far more conservative and lean strongly Republican, and it is the Democrats who have been pushing for efforts to reform health care in your nation so as to lower the costs of medical care to the elderly. In fact, Republicans have offered budget solutions that expressly protect the current elderly's right to exorbitant medical expenses of limited utility, most recently Paul Ryan's budget. I respectfully suggest therefore that your perception and understanding of this issue (one that I generally agree needs addressed) is distorted.

Not distorted at all! I dislike the Republican posturing on Medicare immensely. Few things made me more nauseous than the Republican attacks on Obamacare for its cuts to Medicare.

What allows me to circle the square is my faith that Republicans are lying. I have no doubt that they will campaign on preserving Medicare benefits, but will cut them (more than Democrats would) once in power.

As for American nationalism, I'll point out that I am a Canadian. Are you logically consistent enough to accept the notion of other nations treating Americans as second-class persons if you do the same for them? I note that your Declaration of Independence at the very least does not make provisions for Americans only, but speaks of all men. I would further note that it is well established in the social sciences that nationalism is a variant on tribalism, and therefore a bias to be suspicious of, for it distorts your perceptions of others which leads to poorer evaluations and understandings of said others, whether they be allies or adversaries.

Nationalism is obviously morally indefensible. From any modern philosophical point of view, it's immoral to privilege an in-group.

That's what makes me so unapologetic! I know it's immoral, and I don't mind. I have no issue with privileging my family over a stranger's, and no issue with privileging my country over a foreign country. I expect other countries to do the same.

I agree that favoritism should not interfere with rational, unsentimental evaluation, and aim for that goal to the extent that I can control for my own biases. I'm pretty good, but everyone has blind spots. To counteract bias, I make a concerted effort to seek outside input and weigh it seriously.

mediablitz:The elderly require more health care than the young. They have put in their time. It's part of the social contract (or should be), and it is simply the right, moral thing to do. Not "fair" would be young people shirking their responsibility to society, based on the almighty dollar as a guide.

Let me clear something up: I don't mean that the elderly - as a timeless class of different peoples who are always ages 65-100 - have always underpaid for health care. I mean that the current (and impending) cohort of elderly Americans - those born between 1930 and 1960 - have grossly underpaid for the healthcare that they will receive. This is a form of wealth redistribution from younger generations to older generations, which was never an intended feature of health insurance. Socialized health care has always been based on the notion of an intergenerational compact that no generation would leave the system worse than they found it.

mediablitz:Seriously? With "we need to cut SS benefits" as a platform, you have to ask that question? You haven't seen a multitude of people saying the elderly are just getting "too much", like the guy I was responding to?

Seriously. One can take a postion on expanding or curbing the current rate of benefits which the elderly recieve, particualrly as it pertains to contriobutions versus entitlements without claiming any morality or an effort to "fark the elderly".

YOU may see that effort as having the end result of "farking the elderly", but I have not seen anyone arguing that the GOAL they are seeking on moral grounds is to "fark the elderly over".

pxsteel:Even if you think that any one of F&F, Benghazi, IRS, AP information gathering has any weight. You have to admit that it is starting to pile up and people are starting to notice.

I doubt it will make much difference, except perhaps if it tips very, very close mid-term elections (if there are any after all the gerrymandering from both sides to build solid red and blue districts).

As we see here on Fark every day on every thread, there are some people who will refuse with their dying breath that ANY criticism of Obama has merit. And there are some who have completely bought into the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" fallacy, and there are some who are simply blind binary politicos, who don't know or want to know about "the details" and just vote for their favorite team regardless.

Of course the same is true on the other side. There's probably much less than 10% of the voting population who are even susceptable to changing their vote based on changing information. And do you honestly think that even 6 months from now, much less in late 2014 that these "scandalettes" will be fresh on anyone's minds?

Captain Dan:I favor a system that gives the best teachers more than they are currently receiving, the average teacher about the same, and the worst teachers a pink slip. Job security for subpar teachers is not a priority that I share with unions.

An excellent idea, in theory. In practice, how do you measure the quality of teaching? Test scores? Subjective evaluations by their management or other teachers? Fewest in-class stabbings?

TV's Vinnie:All of this is because of the fact that republicans refuse to allow America to be America. They want to impose some sort of irrational, violent, and unworkable regime upon nearly all of us.

Republicans, please, listen to me. I know I don't have a billion dollars but please listen to me anyway.

The poor don't want to be starved.The old don't want to be homeless.Women do not want to be raped and forced to give birth against their will.Soldiers do not want to be cannon-fodder.Hispanics don't want to be your butlers and landscapers forever.Children deserve a better education than being told "Cuz God said so!".

Your world is horrible and brutal. It is ugly and vile! It is a nightmare filled with despair and death. No sane person would want to live in such a Hell. Why do you insist on forcing us to live in it?

TV's Vinnie:All of this is because of the fact that republicans refuse to allow America to be America. They want to impose some sort of irrational, violent, and unworkable regime upon nearly all of us.

Republicans, please, listen to me. I know I don't have a billion dollars but please listen to me anyway.

The poor don't want to be starved.The old don't want to be homeless.Women do not want to be raped and forced to give birth against their will.Soldiers do not want to be cannon-fodder.Hispanics don't want to be your butlers and landscapers forever.Children deserve a better education than being told "Cuz God said so!".

Your world is horrible and brutal. It is ugly and vile! It is a nightmare filled with despair and death. No sane person would want to live in such a Hell. Why do you insist on forcing us to live in it?

* being convicted of tax fraud related to bribery charges* sending operatives to break into the other guy's headquarters, to see what sort of campaign he wants to run* and then lying about it, and obstructing justice whenever and wherever possible* secretly selling arms to an avowed enemy state despite an arms embargo, in order to funnel funds to a group that you have been specifically prohibited by law from funding * lying to Congress and the American about WMDs to start a needless war* forging evidence to back those false claims* deliberately and knowingly outing an agent of the CIA, then perjuring oneself about it* approving the use of torture, extradition to places that torture, and the creation of places to hold people without charges or access to due process for years on end

Things That Are NOT Criminal Scandals:

* being caught boinking the fat girl that brings in the mail. Lying about it under oath kinda/sorta is.* being President when a facility gets attacked in an unsettled place, in such a way that the details get hazy in the fog of war

Look at this nice list of federal political scandals in the United States. Remember that Harding is generally considered the worst and most corrupt President in history. Now see which Presidents since his time have the most scandals under their names, and remind yourself of which party they have in common. It's a remarkable correlation.

It's not about the party, it's about the facts. Sorry, Republicans, but this is yet another circumstance in which the facts seem to be biased against you.

bias noun

a:b: an inclination ofespecially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment :c: an instance of such prejudiced(1): deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates(2): systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

* being convicted of tax fraud related to bribery charges* sending operatives to break into the other guy's headquarters, to see what sort of campaign he wants to run* and then lying about it, and obstructing justice whenever and wherever possible* secretly selling arms to an avowed enemy state despite an arms embargo, in order to funnel funds to a group that you have been specifically prohibited by law from funding* lying to Congress and the American about WMDs to start a needless war* forging evidence to back those false claims* deliberately and knowingly outing an agent of the CIA, then perjuring oneself about it* approving the use of torture, extradition to places that torture, and the creation of places to hold people without charges or access to due process for years on end

Things That Are NOT Criminal Scandals:

* being caught boinking the fat girl that brings in the mail. Lying about it under oath kinda/sorta is.* being President when a facility gets attacked in an unsettled place, in such a way that the details get hazy in the fog of war

Look at this nice list of federal political scandals in the United States. Remember that Harding is generally considered the worst and most corrupt President in history. Now see which Presidents since his time have the most scandals under their names, and remind yourself of which party they have in common. It's a remarkable correlation.

It's not about the party, it's about the facts. Sorry, Republicans, but this is yet another circumstance in which the facts seem to be biased against you.

bias noun

a: BENT TENDENCYb: an inclination ofespecially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment :c: an instance of such prejudiced(1): deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates(2): systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others

BojanglesPaladin:As we see here on Fark every day on every thread, there are some people who will refuse with their dying breath that ANY criticism of Obama has merit.

As mentioned elsewhere, it's the "Boy Who Cried Wolf". 5 years of conflicting partisan biatchery. Political leaders announcing happily that their primary concern is to depose the President. So don't blame others for the bed you farking made.

RevMercutio:BojanglesPaladin:As we see here on Fark every day on every thread, there are some people who will refuse with their dying breath that ANY criticism of Obama has merit.

As mentioned elsewhere, it's the "Boy Who Cried Wolf". 5 years of conflicting partisan biatchery. Political leaders announcing happily that their primary concern is to depose the President. So don't blame others for the bed you farking made.

Poor analogy. In the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" the wolf eventually shows up.

I_C_Weener:Gaseous Anomaly: Danger Mouse: you over there...get ready to call someone a racist

Good point. I remember when sitting Congress members questioned Jimmy Carter's eligibility to be President. And how every conservative was convinced Carter was "bad" in multiple contradictory dimensions simultaneously (he was a do-nothing empty suit who was about to implement martial law too, IIRC...).

/he was very articulate though

Joe Biden believed so much in Obama's articulateness that he ran against him in the primaries.

BojanglesPaladin:Why do we have to "prove" that one "side" is better or worse than the other? I'm perfectly content to agree that both parties are good and terrible in their own special ways. I have no allegience to either one, and I think most people who do are ... intellectually stunted.

Hey, if something as laboriously manufactured as Benghazi-gate gets to be a "scandal", then this surely qualifies. Of course, both the result of utterly useless Republican assclowns. They just love scandal.

Gyrfalcon:BojanglesPaladin: Why do we have to "prove" that one "side" is better or worse than the other? I'm perfectly content to agree that both parties are good and terrible in their own special ways. I have no allegience to either one, and I think most people who do are ... intellectually stunted.

And yet you spend 85% of your time here trying to do just that.

If that is your understanding, then your comprehension skills need some work, or your partisan filter needs adjusting.

BojanglesPaladin:Gyrfalcon: BojanglesPaladin: Why do we have to "prove" that one "side" is better or worse than the other? I'm perfectly content to agree that both parties are good and terrible in their own special ways. I have no allegience to either one, and I think most people who do are ... intellectually stunted.

And yet you spend 85% of your time here trying to do just that.

If that is your understanding, then your comprehension skills need some work, or your partisan filter needs adjusting.

It's pretty much general agreement from people reading your posts. You just pretend you aren't a blatant GOP shill.